Foreign arbitral award upheld as enforceable based on parties' conduct and intent. Failure to challenge award led to enforcement.

The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, ruling that the foreign arbitral award was enforceable and binding on the parties. The court emphasized the significance of parties' intention and conduct in establishing the existence of an arbitration agreement, stating that it can be inferred from correspondence and actions even if not explicitly signed. The appellant's failure to challenge the arbitral award in court led to the enforcement being allowed, with the court finding no valid grounds for opposition.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction of the Singapore Commodity Exchange to arbitrate the dispute.
2. Validity of the arbitration agreement under Section 7 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
3. Enforceability of the foreign arbitral award.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Jurisdiction of the Singapore Commodity Exchange to Arbitrate the Dispute:
The appellant contended that the Singapore Commodity Exchange did not have jurisdiction to arbitrate the dispute as the sales contract containing the arbitration clause was not signed by them. The appellant argued that the purchase order, which was accepted by the respondent, contained terms including the exclusive jurisdiction of the Bombay High Court. However, the court found that the appellant had requested changes to the payment terms in the sales contract, which the respondent accepted. This indicated a meeting of minds and the appellant's acknowledgment of the sales contract terms, including the arbitration clause. Moreover, the appellant made a counterclaim before the Arbitral Tribunal, thereby submitting to its jurisdiction.

2. Validity of the Arbitration Agreement under Section 7 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996:
The court examined Section 7 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, which defines an arbitration agreement and its requirements. It was held that an arbitration agreement need not be signed by all parties if it is in writing and can be inferred from an exchange of letters, telex, telegrams, or other means of telecommunication that provide a record of the agreement. The court concluded that the correspondence between the parties, including emails and the appellant's actions, demonstrated that there was a binding arbitration agreement. The court emphasized that the intention of the parties and their conduct should be considered to determine the existence of an arbitration agreement.

3. Enforceability of the Foreign Arbitral Award:
The appellant did not challenge the arbitral award dated 18-12-2009 in any court of law. Instead, they filed a suit for damages against the respondent in the High Court. The High Court, after hearing both parties, allowed the enforcement of the foreign award, observing that the appellant had not provided any proof to refuse its enforcement. The court held that the foreign award was enforceable under Part II of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, and binding on the parties under Section 46. The Supreme Court affirmed this decision, stating that there were no valid grounds to oppose the enforcement of the foreign award.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the High Court's decision that the foreign arbitral award was enforceable and binding on the parties. The court emphasized the importance of the parties' intention and conduct in determining the existence of an arbitration agreement and reiterated that an arbitration agreement need not be signed if it can be inferred from the parties' correspondence and actions.

---